Same Sex Marriage (Poll on The Journal)

ruthloss

I like you Old Hippy., here have a huge HUG.;)

old hippy

ruthloss wrote: »

I like you Old Hippy., here have a huge HUG.;)

Sniff... thanks

Holsten

86 people are complete idiots.

100% for it, it doesn't affect me in anyway at all, if a gay couple want to get married then they should be able to.

OldNotWIse

realgolfgeek wrote: »

you don't like me ? How old are you, 12 ?

Are we supposed to "like" everyone because we're grownups? You clearly live in a land of lemonade waterfalls and pink candyfloss skies so I have to ask...How old are you?

OldNotWIse

old hippy wrote: »

You're goddam right I'm angry. My mother won't acknowledge I happen to be bi and somebody important to me was spat at yesterday and called a monkey - so forgive me if I bridle at Czarcasm's suggestion to go softly softly.

I like you, ONWI, so I'm not going to tussle with you but for me, the whimpering meek bleeding heart sit on the fence time is over. Militant and proud now :mad:

Well the angrily angrily is clearly not working for you either... I hate militant and proud for the sake of being militant and proud. It's one of the reasons I stopped going to gay pride. Yes we should demand equal rights but being "proud" because of something that is beyond your control? Being proud because we are gay or bisexual? Why? Its not an achievement. My straight friends are not proud because they are straight. And, militant just tends to get people's back up

old hippy

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Well the angrily angrily is clearly not working for you either... I hate militant and proud for the sake of being militant and proud. It's one of the reasons I stopped going to gay pride. Yes we should demand equal rights but being "proud" because of something that is beyond your control? Being proud because we are gay or bisexual? Why? Its not an achievement. My straight friends are not proud because they are straight. And, militant just tends to get people's back up

I'm exaggerating. I don't generally do the whole "proud" stuff. And I'm not as militant as some. I'm just tired of the begrudgers and haters out there. Czarcasm suggests I speak to them on their level. Which is what I'm doing. Their level.

I'm not afraid to be vocal and wear my heart on my sleeve and it it irks a few people, that's a shame but they are the ones who want to keep our brothers and sisters down, isn't it?

hansfrei

old hippy wrote: »

I don't like you but I still think you should be allowed post here, if only so people can point out your irrational leanings

How is the poster irrational. For all we know he/she is right. Telling people to blindly accept what you want on the basis that you believe its right? Sheer madness.

Absoluvely

hansfrei wrote: »

How is the poster irrational. For all we know he/she is right. Telling people to blindly accept what you want on the basis that you believe its right? Sheer madness.

The belief that you should only be eligible to marry a man if the state says that you're a woman is irrational because it's discriminatory with no benefit to anyone. Therefore we know that he is wrong.

And nobody is telling him that the reason he should accept it is that we believe it's right. We're telling him to accept it because it's demonstrably right. Sheer logic.

old hippy

hansfrei wrote: »

How is the poster irrational. For all we know he/she is right. Telling people to blindly accept what you want on the basis that you believe its right? Sheer madness.

The poster not only doesn't want or like marriage - he doesn't like gay people being in a relationship. Full stop. If that's not irrational, I don't know what is.

Sheer madness indeed.

hansfrei

Absoluvely wrote: »

The belief that you should only be eligible to marry a man if the state says that you're a woman is irrational because it's discriminatory with no benefit to anyone. Therefore we know that he is wrong.

And nobody is telling him that the reason he should accept it is that we believe it's right. We're telling him to accept it because it's demonstrably right. Sheer logic.

Wrong? We have no research that suggests the effects on society if gay marriage passes into law will be beneficial.

None.

If the poster believes it's wrong and he has a vote, let him/her at it.

old hippy

hansfrei wrote: »

Wrong? We have no research that suggests the effects on society if gay marriage passes into law will be beneficial.

None.

If the poster believes it's wrong and he has a vote, let him/her at it.

Society is not going to disintergrate if gay people are allowed marry the one's they love.

I'd say people being in love and getting married is very beneficial.

NTMK

old hippy wrote: »

I'm exaggerating. I don't generally do the whole "proud" stuff. And I'm not as militant as some. I'm just tired of the begrudgers and haters out there. Czarcasm suggests I speak to them on their level. Which is what I'm doing. Their level.

One thing your never going to achieve on the internet is convert a homophobe from seeing your side of the argument. Every fact based defence has been taken away from them and they are now left with their own feelings and they're still against you.

Trust me i run into morons my age (23) about how single parent families are terrible and they should never have introduced divorce

Spend more time convincing the undecided and unmotivated why marrage equality is worth voting for

Eventually the side you hate view point will become completely unacceptable and they'll ether shut up or be made to look like a complete tool everytime they voice their opinion

OldNotWIse

hansfrei wrote: »

How is the poster irrational. For all we know he/she is right. Telling people to blindly accept what you want on the basis that you believe its right? Sheer madness.

As opposed to telling 12% of the population they cannot enjoy the same rights as others on the basis of "just not liking" what they do?? Sheer hypocrisy.

Absoluvely

hansfrei wrote: »

We have no research that suggests the effects on society if gay marriage passes into law will be beneficial.

Why on earth would anyone need published research to show that reducing statutory sex-discrimination is beneficial to society?

I'm sure that the research is out there but I'm not stupid enough to require it.

Czarcasm

old hippy wrote: »

I'm exaggerating. I don't generally do the whole "proud" stuff. And I'm not as militant as some. I'm just tired of the begrudgers and haters out there. Czarcasm suggests I speak to them on their level. Which is what I'm doing. Their level.

Speaking to people who disagree with you with hatred? That's not what I meant at all and well you know it Hippy. You say they are ignorant, you even speak yourself of how intolerant you are of religion. How is this a liberal and open minded point of view?

You say you want equality, then show people who disagree with you what equality means to you - stop looking down on them!

I'm not afraid to be vocal and wear my heart on my sleeve and it it irks a few people, that's a shame but they are the ones who want to keep our brothers and sisters down, isn't it?

Hippy that is the kind of meaningless rhetorical nonsense that nobody needs to hear. Just because I don't share your orientation I can't be part of your little group?

What's that if it's not reverse discrimination? The very thing you accuse other people of directing at you, the very thing you're trying to fight against, yet you yourself are one of it's most obvious perpetrators.

old hippy

Czarcasm wrote: »

Speaking to people who disagree with you with hatred? That's not what I meant at all and well you know it Hippy. You say they are ignorant, you even speak yourself of how intolerant you are of religion. How is this a liberal and open minded point of view?

You say you want equality, then show people who disagree with you what equality means to you - stop looking down on them!





Hippy that is the kind of meaningless rhetorical nonsense that nobody needs to hear. Just because I don't share your orientation I can't be part of your little group?

What's that if it's not reverse discrimination? The very thing you accuse other people of directing at you, the very thing you're trying to fight against, yet you yourself are one of it's most obvious perpetrators.

Yes, clearly, I am letting the side down. Look, dude - you do your thing & I'll do mine. I'm trying to be nice and patient now but I suggest you put me on ignore and then we can live happily ever after.

wp_rathead

realgolfgeek wrote: »

I'd be indifferent,
I don't like the idea of gay couples, and don't like the idea of married gay couples. That's just how I feel.

I don"t like pineapple on pizza
But if two concenting adults want to have pineapple on pizza who am i to stop them

Czarcasm

old hippy wrote: »

Yes, clearly, I am letting the side down. Look, dude - you do your thing & I'll do mine. I'm trying to be nice and patient now but I suggest you put me on ignore and then we can live happily ever after.

Ignoring the issue Hippy doesn't mean it ceases to exist, ignoring the issue only leads to ignorance, and while ignorance might indeed be bliss and living happily ever after, I can't afford the luxury of ignoring anyone's opinion just because it doesn't agree with mine.

old hippy

Czarcasm wrote: »

Ignoring the issue Hippy doesn't mean it ceases to exist, ignoring the issue only leads to ignorance, and while ignorance might indeed be bliss and living happily ever after, I can't afford the luxury of ignoring anyone's opinion just because it doesn't agree with mine.

What the merry hell are you on about? I'm not igoring the issue of discrimination, I post on it almost every day

What do you want from me? Blood? A blind date?

hansfrei

OldNotWIse wrote: »

As opposed to telling 12% of the population they cannot enjoy the same rights as others on the basis of "just not liking" what they do?? Sheer hypocrisy.

Thats how democracy works. People vote on stuff based on their opions.

If you rather be living in some undemocratic communist state than go do that. He/she have the right to their opinions. Your opinion is no more valid than that posters.

Absoluvely

hansfrei wrote: »

Your opinion is no more valid than that posters.

That's an insane statement.

old hippy

hansfrei wrote: »

Thats how democracy works. People vote on stuff based on their opions.

If you rather be living in some undemocratic communist state than go do that. He/she have the right to their opinions. Your opinion is no more valid than that posters.

I'm going to ask you again; you don't want gays to be married and happy, you don't like gays being in a relationship and happy. What do you want gays to be, exactly? Unhappy? Alone? Suicidal? And explain it in terms relating to your "democracy". Thanks in advance.

Friend Computer

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Well the angrily angrily is clearly not working for you either... I hate militant and proud for the sake of being militant and proud. It's one of the reasons I stopped going to gay pride. Yes we should demand equal rights but being "proud" because of something that is beyond your control? Being proud because we are gay or bisexual? Why? Its not an achievement. My straight friends are not proud because they are straight. And, militant just tends to get people's back up

"Proud" is a bad choice of word which is reactionary towards the shaming that goes on. However there's no other single word that encapsulates "not being ashamed of" and that phrase is a bit of a mouthful.

It's not about being proud of it like it's an achievement, it's an unwillingness to be made feel ashamed of who you are.

hansfrei wrote: »

Thats how democracy works.

Wrong, that's how mob rule works. Democracies--modern democracies--have protections to ensure the majority can't run roughshod over the rights of minorities.

miss no stars

I actually can't believe that there are so many people who support inequality.

Because that's what it is. Not supporting gay marriage (or, in other words, just plain old marriage between two consenting adults..) is supporting inequality.

What the hell is wrong with people?! If you don't like mustard on your ham sandwiches, would you refuse to allow people to put mustard on their ham sandwiches if that's what they liked??? Refusing to allow gay marriage is exactly as sensible and logical as that.

hansfrei

old hippy wrote: »

I'm going to ask you again; you don't want gays to be married and happy, you don't like gays being in a relationship and happy. What do you want gays to be, exactly? Unhappy? Alone? Suicidal? And explain it in terms relating to your "democracy". Thanks in advance.

What the actual fvck are you on about?


Seriously

Ranting and raving

---

>

hansfrei

Friend Computer wrote: »

"Proud" is a bad choice of word which is reactionary towards the shaming that goes on. However there's no other single word that encapsulates "not being ashamed of" and that phrase is a bit of a mouthful.

It's not about being proud of it like it's an achievement, it's an unwillingness to be made feel ashamed of who you are.



Wrong, that's how mob rule works. Democracies--modern democracies--have protections to ensure the majority can't run roughshod over the rights of minorities.

Wrong. Democracy is democracy.

old hippy

hansfrei wrote: »

What the actual fvck are you on about?


Seriously

Ranting and raving

---

>

Sorry, I presumed you agreed with golfgeek's "valid" opinion that gays shouldn't be in a relationship, let alone a marriage and confused the two of you. My bad.

hansfrei

Absoluvely wrote: »

That's an insane statement.

It seems insane to you. If that poster wants to vote a certain way what right have you to prevent him/her from doing so?

I may not like how some people vote (and have voted) but our demoracy is the envy of many countries. Bad as it is.

hansfrei

miss no stars wrote: »

I actually can't believe that there are so many people who support inequality.

Because that's what it is. Not supporting gay marriage (or, in other words, just plain old marriage between two consenting adults..) is supporting inequality.

What the hell is wrong with people?! If you don't like mustard on your ham sandwiches, would you refuse to allow people to put mustard on their ham sandwiches if that's what they liked??? Refusing to allow gay marriage is exactly as sensible and logical as that.

It goes a lot deeper. Theres offspring, adopted kids and societal consequences for all of these changes. None of which should be discussed in AH. Mods hate that. People generally get banned for even going there.

Czarcasm

old hippy wrote: »

What the merry hell are you on about? I'm not igoring the issue of discrimination, I post on it almost every day

You post on it every day, but have you ever thought, and I mean this with the greatest of respect, but, have you ever thought to shut up for five minutes and actually LISTEN to what other people who disagree with your opinion are saying? Have you ever as I have tried to understand someone's opinion and what led them to hold that opinion? You talk of equality but you refuse to practice equality, instead any opinion which disagrees with yours you try to silence it, disregard it, ignore it.

You know how that feels in the offline world, to have your opinion silenced and disregarded and ignored, so why would you seek to make another person feel that way in an discussion online? You've been given a forum, a voice, a space to air your views, yet you use that opportunity to shout down others, the very same thing you fight against offline. What a waste of a great opportunity.

What do you want from me? Blood? A blind date?

Look how far we've come Hippy through means of discussion and negotiation and being civil to each other? You've spared me the worst of your scorn I've seen you hand down to other posters, and I get offered a date!

See? Much further than if either of us came out all guns blazing and being uncivil to each other!

old hippy

hansfrei wrote: »

It goes a lot deeper. Theres offspring, adopted kids and societal consequences for all of these changes. None of which should be discussed in AH. Mods hate that. People generally get banned for even going there.

Reminds me of the kind of arguments we heard when divorce was being debated. We haven't seen society collapsing after that was brought it, have we?

Friend Computer

hansfrei wrote: »

Wrong. Democracy is democracy.

Exactly, you were describing mob rule, not democracy. I'm so glad we could sort this out!

Jimoslimos

miss no stars wrote: »

What the hell is wrong with people?! If you don't like mustard on your ham sandwiches, would you refuse to allow people to put mustard on their ham sandwiches if that's what they liked??? Refusing to allow gay marriage is exactly as sensible and logical as that.

True, but continuing your analogy. By not tackling the privileges afforded to married couples you are essentially charging single people, unmarried couples and cohabiting siblings extra NOT to have a ham sandwich, with or without mustard.

Or to put it simply, the people who can't or don't want to get married will still end up subsidising those who do - regardless of whether those unions are straight or gay.

Corkfeen

hansfrei wrote: »

Wrong? We have no research that suggests the effects on society if gay marriage passes into law will be beneficial.

None.

If the poster believes it's wrong and he has a vote, let him/her at it.

Gay people are part of society ergo allowing them to marry is beneficial to society.Plus many gay couples have children however only one parent is recognised in law.Legally the child could be taken into care.Both parents would be recognised if gay marriage was legislated for.Therefore child has more rights.So that's beneficial to society too.

Just a sample of the benefits. So what's your rational basis to oppose?

old hippy

Czarcasm wrote: »

You post on it every day, but have you ever thought, and I mean this with the greatest of respect, but, have you ever thought to shut up for five minutes and actually LISTEN to what other people who disagree with your opinion are saying? Have you ever as I have tried to understand someone's opinion and what led them to hold that opinion? You talk of equality but you refuse to practice equality, instead any opinion which disagrees with yours you try to silence it, disregard it, ignore it.

You know how that feels in the offline world, to have your opinion silenced and disregarded and ignored, so why would you seek to make another person feel that way in an discussion online? You've been given a forum, a voice, a space to air your views, yet you use that opportunity to shout down others, the very same thing you fight against offline. What a waste of a great opportunity.





Look how far we've come Hippy through means of discussion and negotiation and being civil to each other? You've spared me the worst of your scorn I've seen you hand down to other posters, and I get offered a date!

See? Much further than if either of us came out all guns blazing and being uncivil to each other!

I listen, sure. I've never silenced anyone but there's a lot of garbage posted on threads like these that aren't worth being nice over. The guy who got banned earlier (yellow121) - was he worth being all touch feely with? Do you think he would actually listen or change his mind?

miss no stars

hansfrei wrote: »

It goes a lot deeper. Theres offspring, adopted kids and societal consequences for all of these changes. None of which should be discussed in AH. Mods hate that. People generally get banned for even going there.

This **** makes me want to cry. I've worked with lots of kids, including kids with two moms or two dads. For the bigots reading this, I can tell you as a white, straight, ethnically Irish person - the kids were fine. Happy. Thriving. That doesn't happen without a loving, secure and stable home.

Kids need love, attention and security - all of which can be provided by a same sex couple.

Fcuking bigots.

The reality is that the societal consequences of these changes are actually sweet feck all. It's incredibly difficult for any couple to adopt in Ireland because those who previously would have given children up for adoption are keeping them. So many adoptions these days are from the far east. [sarcasm] What a tragedy! Poor asian kids being adopted into stable, loving homes with financial security! The tragedy! I'm sure the children would much prefer to remain in orphanages than be subjected to THE GAY[/sarcasm]

Seriously, there is not one single way in which gay marriage, or gay couples adopting, impacts at all on how everyone else goes about their daily business.


edit: I'm not trying to get at hansfrei, it's not directed at you, just at the cr@p excuses people use.

miss no stars

Jimoslimos wrote: »

True, but continuing your analogy. By not tackling the privileges afforded to married couples you are essentially charging single people, unmarried couples and cohabiting siblings extra NOT to have a ham sandwich, with or without mustard.

Or to put it simply, the people who can't or don't want to get married will still end up subsidising those who do - regardless of whether those unions are straight or gay.

Where have I said I am against affording the protection of law to all family units? In time I am sure these issues will be dealt with - I would hope to see as much. I'm not up on the law of marriage, cohabiting etc, so I really can't comment on how difficult it would be to provide such protections. But marriage between two people in an exclusive relationship is a VERY easy one to provide and there's no excuse for not providing it.

hansfrei

miss no stars wrote: »

This **** makes me want to cry. I've worked with lots of kids, including kids with two moms or two dads. For the bigots reading this, I can tell you as a white, straight, ethnically Irish person - the kids were fine. Happy. Thriving. That doesn't happen without a loving, secure and stable home.

Kids need love, attention and security - all of which can be provided by a same sex couple.

Fcuking bigots.

The reality is that the societal consequences of these changes are actually sweet feck all. It's incredibly difficult for any couple to adopt in Ireland because those who previously would have given children up for adoption a@//@re keeping them. So many adoptions these days are from the far east. [sarcasm] What a tragedy! Poor asian kids being adopted into stable, loving homes with financial security! The tragedy! I'm sure the children would much prefer to remain in orphanages than be subjected to THE GAY[/sarcasm]

Seriously, there is not one single way in which gay marriage, or gay couples adopting, impacts at all on how everyone else goes about their daily business.

Blah, blah, bigot blah blah.

I've never given any opinion on gay marriage.

People don't want to listen. People are only reading to reply. Czarcasm is right with his previous post.

rubadub

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Gay marriage will eventually come to pass, but I wonder if those who campaign so vehemently in favour will be as vocal when questioning the inequalities suffered by singles, unmarried couples and those cohabiting but not in a sexual relationship (elderly siblings for example).

You could wonder the same about straight people's concern for such groups. I dont really see the relevance of your post tbh

He is wondering about straight peoples concerns, you seem to be jumping to the conclusion that only gay people would be campaigning strongly for gay marriage, he just said "those". I imagine many gay people are against it too, for some of the reasons already given, like unfair benefits.

The relevance is people are supposedly saying they are concerned about equality, so it should be concern about equality for all. Otherwise they are not really into equality but getting the same unfair beneficial rights as some other group has, while other groups still have no such rights.

Friend Computer

hansfrei wrote: »

Blah, blah, bigot blah blah.

I've never given any opinion on gay marriage.

Ah, so the typical "I'm going to defend an unpopular opinion then get stroppy when people draw perfectly valid conclusions" brand of ****stirring. Good to know!

old hippy

hansfrei wrote: »

Blah, blah, bigot blah blah.

I've never given any opinion on gay marriage.

People don't want to listen. People are only reading to reply. Czarcasm is right with his previous post.

But you did say golfgeek's opinion that he doesn't want gays to be in a relationship, let alone marriage, was "valid".

So I don't jump to the wrong conclusion once more, can I assume you are in favour of gay marriage?

hansfrei

old hippy wrote: »

But you did say golfgeek's opinion that he doesn't want gays to be in a relationship, let alone marriage, was "valid".

So I don't jump to the wrong conclusion once more, can I assume you are in favour of gay marriage?

His opinion is valid. You might not like that. What do you propose we do? Shoot him? Send him to Guantanamo for brainwashing?

You already said you don't like him. You never met him.

OldNotWIse

hansfrei wrote: »

Thats how democracy works. People vote on stuff based on their opions.

If you rather be living in some undemocratic communist state than go do that. He/she have the right to their opinions. Your opinion is no more valid than that posters.

I never said it was. Did you fall and hit your head m'dear?

old hippy

hansfrei wrote: »

His opinion is valid. You might not like that. What do you propose we do? Shoot him? Send him to Guantanamo for brainwashing?

You already said you don't like him. You never met him.

I don't want to meet someone who doesn't believe an entire swathe of society deserves to be happy.

How can his view be described as "valid".

valid
ˈvalɪd/
adjective
adjective: valid

1. 1.
   (of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.
   
   "a valid criticism"
   synonyms:well founded, sound, well grounded, reasonable, rational, logical, justifiable, defensible, defendable, supportable, sustainable, maintainable, workable, arguable, able to hold water, plausible, telling, viable, bona fide;
   
   
   
   

Again, so I don't jump to the wrong conclusion once more, can I assume you are in favour of gay marriage?

rubadub

miss no stars wrote: »

Where have I said I am against affording the protection of law to all family units? In time I am sure these issues will be dealt with - I would hope to see as much. I'm not up on the law of marriage, cohabiting etc, so I really can't comment on how difficult it would be to provide such protections. But marriage between two people in an exclusive relationship is a VERY easy one to provide and there's no excuse for not providing it.

I think you missed his point there. When saying "By not tackling the privileges afforded to married couples" I think he was meant there should NOT be any privileges simply because 2 people are married. Not that others should get these unfair benefits too.

If there was a law in place that meant people eating ham sandwiches without mustard got financial benefits, then I would not be campaigning to get people benefits who do eat it with mustard too. I would be asking for the ridiculous situation to be scrapped, no benefits regardless of what you eat.

If you want to give people benefits for taking care of kids then fine, but it seems they are living in the past and are presuming people who marry all have kids. Cut out this nonsense guessing, if you want to know if people have kids, just ask them, and give benefits accordingly.

miss no stars

rubadub wrote: »

I think you missed his point there. When saying "By not tackling the privileges afforded to married couples" I think he was meant there should NOT be any privileges simply because 2 people are married. Not that others should get these unfair benefits too.

If there was a law in place that meant people eating ham sandwiches without mustard got financial benefits, then I would not be campaigning to get people benefits who do eat it with mustard too. I would be asking for the ridiculous situation to be scrapped, no benefits regardless of what you eat.

If you want to give people benefits for taking care of kids then fine, but it seems they are living in the past and are presuming people who marry all have kids. Cut out this nonsense guessing, if you want to know if people have kids, just ask them, and give benefits accordingly.

Ah. See, I think that if two people (with or without kids) have lived together and shared a home and are a de facto family unit then they should have the same protections as any other family unit such as inheritance benefits, next of kin visitation rights etc. Just because it isn't a traditional family unit with a mom, dad and two kids doesn't mean it's less valid as a family unit. If two elderly siblings were cohabiting and one died, I'd hate to think that anything would happen other than the home automatically going to the remaining sibling without being subject to inheritance tax. There's a good reason for having special protections in law for families, such as not turfing people out of their home.

OldNotWIse

hansfrei wrote: »

What the actual fvck are you on about?


Seriously

Ranting and raving

---

>

hansfrei wrote: »

Blah, blah, bigot blah blah.

lol, whaaaaat?

A_Sober_Paddy

wow 40% of the votes on the journal are against the idea...bigots

OldNotWIse

old hippy wrote: »

Reminds me of the kind of arguments we heard when divorce was being debated. We haven't seen society collapsing after that was brought it, have we?

lol, "Hello divorce, goodbye Daddy" - I dont remember those posters but I remember being told about them

hansfrei

rubadub wrote: »

I think you missed his point there. When saying "By not tackling the privileges afforded to married couples" I think he was meant there should NOT be any privileges simply because 2 people are married. Not that others should get these unfair benefits too.

If there was a law in place that meant people eating ham sandwiches without mustard got financial benefits, then I would not be campaigning to get people benefits who do eat it with mustard too. I would be asking for the ridiculous situation to be scrapped, no benefits regardless of what you eat.

If you want to give people benefits for taking care of kids then fine, but it seems they are living in the past and are presuming people who marry all have kids. Cut out this nonsense guessing, if you want to know if people have kids, just ask them, and give benefits accordingly.

Germans still get €154/month per child in tax credits.

Crazy socialists. And those other European countries that have evn more child friendly policies. Jaysus. When will they ever learn, huh?

We should rethink policies in general to accomodate children generally IMO.